procps-3.2.6

[highos@…]

I couldn't find a dedicated bug for procps (not surprising considering how long .7 has been out), anyways check the URL for details and such.

[markh@…]

Just a note - I've added this to bug #30's dependency list.

Secondly, although we really should update procps before LFS-4.0 (our version is ridiculously stale), we shouldn't do it yet because shortly after the release, Rik van Riel posted this to LKML:

---

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:

Procps 2.0.8 27 Sep 2002

Does anybody have a brown paper bag I could borrow ?

It appears Robert and I cleaned up stuff a bit too much and procps lost it's VERSION string, so -V doesn't work in the tarball I released earlier today.

Also, it appears the release has awoken some long sleeping patches, which I'll read and (if they work) integrate into procps.

You can download procps 2.0.8 from:

​http://surriel.com/procps/

Expect patches and maybe even a fixed 2.0.8 tarball soon...

If you have any procps bugs or patches, please mail the procps team:

procps-list@…

regards,

Rik

---

So hopefully we can go to the next release (which it appears should be soon) well in time for LFS-4.0 [I know Gerard said don't do package updates but I feel this is a special case due to the old version being fairly out of date]

[highos@…]

Version increment (2.0.9);

"Sep 30, 2002 Friday's release has awoken some other procps developers, many patches have been integrated over the weekend and it's time for a new release: procps-2.0.9.tar.bz2."

[highos@…]

Version increment (2.0.10);

• fix memory size overflow in ps (Anton Blanchard)
• add iowait statistics to top (Rik van Riel)
• update top help text (Denis Vlasenko)
• fix jumpy percentage formatting in top (Denis Vlasenko)
• fix some newer gcc compiler warnings (Denis Vlasenko)
• by default, do not show threads in ps or top - you can use the -m' flag in ps or the H' key in top to show them (Robert Love)

[chris@…]

There's been a mail to lkml by Albert D. Calahan that procps, "contrary to popular belief", is still maintained. They've just released version 3.0.1. The address is ​http://procps.sourceforge.net/

[gerard@…]

Check out procps.sourceforge.net

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.0.5);

Uh, just want to mention quickly, we never had a discussion about which version to stay with, either 2.1.x or 3.0.x. As they are both different projects now, with the same name and everything, I think it best to at least take a closer look then just using the one with a bigger version number :)

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.1.2)

[highos@…]

Version increment (2.0.11)

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.1.3)

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.1.4)

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.1.5)

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.1.6)

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.1.7)

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.1.8)

[iwanek@…]

version incroment for v2 to 2.0.12 new location for v2 ONLY: ​http://tech9.net/rml/procps/ could someone update the summary (i havnt got the perms to do it)

[iwanek@…]

updated patch for 3.1.8

[highos@…]

Version increment (2.0.12)

[highos@…]

Version increment (3.1.9)

[highos@…]

Version increment (2.0.13)

[tushar@…]

Version Increment (3.1.11)

[highos@…]

Version increment (2.0.14);

Still no decision on which is going to be used? (could have sworn I read an e- mail/thread on this recently, hrm)

[Matthew Burgess]

Version increment (3.1.12) - dropping to P5 so I don't try and fix this during the package-freeze :)

[Matthew Burgess]

​http://downloads.linuxfromscratch.org/procps-3.1.11.patch still applies cleanly to this version.

[greg@…]

This package is obviously maintained (at least the 3.1.x version). Is there any reason why we need to keep on maintaining the patch?

Surely, if the patch is correct and can be demonstrated to be so, then upstream would accept it and save us the hassle of maintaining it ourselves.

Any takers?

[greg@…]

Version increment (3.1.13)

[greg@…]

Version increment (3.1.14)

[greg@…]

I've researched the current patch for procps. I cannot reproduce the problem, nor can I see how it's relevant after studying the source code. Here are some relevant threads from the archives:

​http://archives.linuxfromscratch.org/mail-archives/lfs-dev/2001-October/020595.html ​http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2002-January/002195.html ​http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2002-January/002251.html

Essentially, upstream ended up applying locale fixes to proc/sysinfo.c. The current patch is therefore bogus and is just historical baggage. I will remove this patch at next package update.

[greg@…]

Upgrade committed and patch dropped.

[Matthew Burgess]

Version increment (3.1.15/2.0.18) - apologies for incrementing both couldn't remember whether we had a discussion as to which version we want to use and a search didn't appear to give a definite 3.x or 2.x choice.

[greg@…]

apologies for incrementing both couldn't remember whether we had a discussion to which version we want to use and a search didn't appear to give a definite 3.x or 2.x choice.

There doesn't appear to be any pressing reason to use the 2.x version for now. The 3.x version continues to be maintained and updated so best to stick with what we know works IMHO.

[Matthew Burgess]

Version increment (3.2.0) - fixes for 2.6.4 (when we migrate over).

[DJ Lucas]

Version bump 3.2.1

​http://procps.sourceforge.net/download.html

Unable to change version or status

[Matthew Burgess]

Fixed in newxml module

[Matthew Burgess]

Version increment (3.2.2)

[Matthew Burgess]

Version increment (3.2.3). From News:

--- procps-3.2.2 --> procps-3.2.3

avoid truncating long usernames avoid warning about -lncurses when not linking (more) new names for shared libraries (packagers: watch out!) "make install" no longer rebuilds everything wchan now '*' for multi-threaded processes ps: new man page -- thanks Nicolas Francois ps: STAT shows l for multi-threaded processes vmstat: some overflow problems fixed -- thanks Holger Kiehl sysctl: man page fix ---

Additionally, ​http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2004-August/048179.html mentions that we no longer need to 'rm /lib/libproc.so'.

[jeremy@…]

Upgraded to procps 3.2.3 in unstable

[jeremy@…]

and no longer trying to remove the non-existant /lib/libproc.so in unstable

[Matthew Burgess]

Version increment (3.2.4) - thanks Jim! Note there's a new command ('pwdx') with this one.

[jeremy@…]

Upgraded in Unstable

[Matthew Burgess]

Version increment (3.2.5)

[Matthew Burgess]

Version increment (3.2.6)